<p>
</p>
<p>I guess it’s arguable. I mean, if you’re going for likeness to reality, Doryphorus and the Riace Bronzes are almost hyperreal. But I personally prefer Bird in Space to any of that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depends on what you mean by “advanced” or “good.”</p>
<p>It’s like with progress. From the perspective of a middle-class westerner, things have gotten much better over the past 250 years in America. From the perspective of Native Americans…no.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Red, Blue, Green is not art, and his BS explanations don’t make it art (honestly, he sounds SOOOOO pretentious).</p>
<p>Kasimir’s stuff looks cooler and more artistic (from googleimages).</p>
<p>Pop Art, just NO. Gosh, most overrated thing EVER.</p>
<p>I think comic books have the potential to be art. Related/Semi-Random Note: Have your read The Adventures of Kavalier and Klay?</p>
<p>I LOVE THE ART INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO! When I went there 
. Seeing Kelly’s stuff annoyed me though. The restaurant there is amazing. Haha, and the art is too. Now I have a yearning to fly to Chicago.</p>
<p>Do you like tacos or taquitos better? And what do you wash them down with?</p>
<p>Henry Moore, Brancusi, Rodin = artistic vision</p>
<p>Scopas, Praxiteles = Talent</p>
<p>I don’t know which to go with</p>
<p>^^lol I drove to Chicago from Maine. I never really appreciated impressionism until I got there. twas important. THEY NEED MORE BAUHAUS FURNITURE THOUGH !!!</p>
<p>I’m too pedantic to deign to read comic books :b</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Still think the United States’ biggest screw-up was the whole Native American situation. I do wonder what would have happened, had it been played otherwise.</p>
<p>Yes, I like have to constantly remind myself I have a skewed perspective due to my environment…I love books/art/etc. that deal with different perspectives, and how they affect us and how they cause certain changes that maybe should not have happened. Ahh, love it. Love the gray areas due to different perspectives.</p>
<p>I just need to make sure not to be stubborn and consider other perspectives, even when I’m sure I’m right. I think I’m open-minded though.</p>
<p>I think we have achieved progress overall, as a whole, though there are parts that may have gone backwards or stopped.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t read a single comic book.</p>
<p>The thing I mentioned was a Pulitzer-Prize winning novel…</p>
<p>Um…I still say they have potential to be art, though I have no desire to read one. OMG! I wish I could remember what it was called, but we had to read a “graphic essay” dealing with the idea of comic books being art or not being art…ugh can’t remember the title though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, hard. Taquitos, though I love tacos.</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, I love washing them down with chocolate milk. Or with orange juice+seltzer. Perhaps soda. Water usually doesn’t do enough with that :)</p>
<p>This thread is making me miss Art History so much!</p>
<p>I always sort of find it hard to compare modern artists - who are working, to a greater extent, for themselves - to earlier ones - who were often working more directly for patrons. Skopas, Phidias, and Praxiteles may have had great artistic vision but no means to express it.</p>
<p>It’s easier when you’re doing, say, Greek sculptors to Romans. The Greeks could build without supports when the Romans could it, end of story. Comparison across so many millenia brings up changes in what is considered to be important in art.</p>
<p>A lot of your guys’ references/allusions are making me feel stupid…So I hope you are throwing them in there because they have a purpose. Maybe I’m just not knowledgeable.</p>
<p>I love Malevich. I love Warhol. Seriously, you guys need to stop imposing your subjective value judgments on others! :P</p>
<p>If you look at what Warhol did and what he said, you can tell he wasn’t completely serious, but he was larger than life. And if you look and his art and then you read works by philosophers like Baudrillard, it’s like…the same thing! I’m glad that period of experimenting with kitschiness and stuff is over, but at the same time, it’s so…real! I don’t think any other person understood American culture as well as Warhol, including the less serious aspects. In fact, the very meaninglessness of his art is meaningful.</p>
<p>But about “pretentious explanations” - when I don’t understand something, I assume it’s my fault. I think that would be best for you, too.</p>
<p>Look at Kandinsky. If you look at Concerning the Spiritual in Art, you might think it’s BS, but there really is something behind it.</p>
<p>I also hate it when people think they have to “understand” modern art. That implies there’s only one way to understand something. What about “understanding” something on a purely aesthetic level?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now I want to take Art History. Not to sound smart, but to learn more. Even though I’m not the biggest art person, I would love to learn more about art and experience the works of “great” artists with a more critical mind. I guess in college I can…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree (I’m no uber-postmodernist, not an active deconstructor of metanarratives :P) but I think progress is really complicated and we really have to look closely before we do anything in the name of advancement and progress.</p>
<p>Warhol sucks and so do you for disagreeing with that :b</p>
<p>I think you find a lot of the same depth in Mardsden Hartley’s German Officer painting thing (his most famous one. Too lazy to find title) with more originality.</p>
<p>I’ll have to read that Kandinsky thing. It seems very abstract and deep</p>
<p>Re: art, I think that art has changed from a form where it was easier to create a great piece, to a form where it is increasingly rarer to find good/great pieces but the good/great pieces are of much higher quality than before.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Never said I didn’t understand it, though perhaps I don’t.</p>
<p>I do think there’s a point at which people find nonexistent meanings and claim invisible objectives. Perhaps, I’m being narrow though. I just really don’t like most “modern” art. Is this art? <a href=“http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/upload/2007/06/art1.jpg[/url]”>http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/upload/2007/06/art1.jpg</a> </p>
<p>I don’t think I’m imposing my subjective values (how could I?), I’m just stating them. So we can have a discussion!</p>
<p>I really don’t like Warhol. I look at his art and feel nothing. I honestly don’t see its high artistic merit. I’m no expert, but he just does absolutely nothing for me.</p>
<p>
Interesting idea, though I don’t really like that notion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What makes you say that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think its fairly normal to want to “understand” ANYTHING. That’s probably why I’m inquisitive (re: sometimes nosy). I think its nice to understand something on both an aesthetic level and on a deeper, more analytical level. Obviously, can something be UNDERSTOOD? IDK. But I think trying to understand is a useful process and is enlightening and makes me happier.</p>
<p>I’m with CB. I think art is about suggestion. If it says nothing, it is nothing. Art, for me, cannot be purely aesthetic.</p>
<p>The blossoms of the apricot
blow from the east to the west
And I have tried to keep them from falling</p>
<p>on a totally unrelated note, I have listened through all of Never Mind the Bollocks while on CC :O</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>no u</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I like it, but they’re very different. I don’t get what you mean by “more originality” - this painting seems to go with a lot of the complex collage-like things going on with the modernists. Warhol completely stripped all that down. Him and Sol LeWitt and Frank Stella and Roy Lichtenstein and Duane Hanson and all of those folks. That was also original. By Hartley seems not to have a very high opinion of, well, low culture. Warhol bathes in it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, I could barely get anywhere reading it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, why not?
I don’t find anything interesting in it, but someone might. And good luck proving that someone wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, then, don’t say “That’s not art!” Say, “I don’t consider that art.” I accept that. I don’t consider a lot of things art.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, a lot of people don’t. It’s kind of…well, people don’t want to believe something can work this way. But heck, we live in a society where everything else is made in factories, so why not art? You can say it’s because we find meaning in art, but some of us find meaning in furniture, too (see Eero Saarinen or someone like that…Ingvar Kamprad!), and furniture is mass-produced!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Look at his work with the Velvet Underground (“Oh yes, oh yes, that’s fabulous”). Look at what he said:
“I think the most important thing is health.” (coming from a man who probably did LSD)
And how he messed with the press:
“In the future, everybody will be famous for 15 minutes.”
“In the future, 15 people will be famous.”
And my personal favorite:
“In 15 minutes, everybody will be famous.”</p>
<p>Nobody else could do that.
Hell, he coined the word “superstar.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m tempted to agree - I do like art I find meaningful. But I also like pretty things. Don’t you like pretty things? I like pretty things.</p>
<p>It’s funny that by attacking “art for art’s sake,” you’re more attacking Whistler than Warhol.</p>
<p>hai guise. I’m taking over this thread now, after 5 months of inactivity</p>
![http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/upload/2007/06/art1.jpg[/url]](http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/upload/2007/06/art1.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
